![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Dave Yoken
Hi everyone, |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
I know you are going to be told that your question is not within the parameters of this chatboard, since it is post WWII. But I'll help you with it anyway. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Josh K.
If you do a search, you should find a lot of threads on psa v. sgc v. gai. Personally, I dont care much for psa. However, I think, even for them, its unlikely that they would screw up so bad as to give you a 3 on a card as nice as you described. Absent a good scan, its impossible to tell you if the card is undergraded or not. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Howie
Maybe your expectations are too unrealistic. Pop them out and send them to SGC and see what they have to say. My guess is that the grades from the two companies will be similar. Simply paying a lot of money for raw cards won't guaranty that you're getting what you think you're paying extra for. The person who sold you the cards is to blame, not the grading company who's giving you the bad news. Expecting to get a Gem-Mint grade on a 1956 Campanella that was purchased in the last 10 years from a dealer or Ebay is hopeless. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Dave Yoken
I forgot to mention that I had a Cy Young T206 Portrait card graded as well. It came |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: petecld
I will agree with Barry here. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
Closest experience I've had to something like that is when I had a Papoose Gum card of Sitting Bull come back a 60 when I was expecting at least an 88 if not higher. When I asked SGC about it and forwarded a scan, they said it got down graded for the black print marks on front. I had to point out them that they were not print marks, but fibers in the paper. Not likely they are going to make this mistake with a baseball card, but it does happen on occassion |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Judge Dred
There is another alternative - you can crack a card out of the slab and resubmit it. I've heard that this has worked for people in the past. You may be fed up with PSA but there are few other worth while alternatives. SGC seems to be the authenticator of choice for a lot of vintage collectors. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Josh K.
Without seeing the card, I think a 3 on a T206 cy young is a pretty nice grade and wouldnt feel too bad about that (depending on how much you paid). I collect a lot of T206s and most are the equivilent of 3's or 4's. Cards in this grade range are nice b/c they are still very visually appealing (and usually are crease free) and are more reasonable cost-wise than higher graded cards. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Dave Yoken
Hi everyone, |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
A jewlers loupe is the best route to go. It's small and easy to carry around. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
Like it or not, the safest way to buy a card is one already graded. A raw card can seem perfectly fine to you but the grading service may deem it too short to meet its standards. If that is the case, you bought a zero. Many collectors make money buying raw cards and then getting them graded, but without experience you will make mistakes and pay your dues. And if you buy raw cards on ebay, you need to be especially careful. Like everything, this hobby takes practice to get good at it. I'm doing this over twenty years and I'm always learning something new and can still make a mistake, for sure. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Todd Schultz
Everyone has already made the good points. Sometimes its possible to get a comment from the grading company as to why an apparently high-grade card received a low mark. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimB
Several years ago I submitted a card I was sure was going to get an 8 and possibly a 9. When it came back PSA 6, I was really upset. I resubmitted it raw a few months later and it came back a 6 again. I went to the PSA booth at a show to ask why and they argued there was an extremely faint wrinkle on this otherwise mint card and that 6 was the highest grade a card could get with a wrinkle. Now this "wrinkle" (if it even exists) is so faint that it is dificult to see under 10X magnification and I personally think it is b.s. It looks like the natural unevenness of cardboard to me. To their credit, they did give this mint card the same grade twice in a row. I happily have the card out of any authenticator's holder now. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Harry
I agree with most of the comments back. I have submitted 2000+ cards to PSA and have been burned with the dreaded "surface wrinkles". On closer examination, I did see that. My personal opinion is that they didn't distract from the appearance of the card. I feel the same way about a barely noticable pin hole in an otherwise "Mint" card would bring it down to a PSA 1. BUT, those are the standards that everyone has to follow and I willingly follow them as well. And that is why condition rarity translates to big dollars. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jason D
I would resend it to PSA. THey are so inconsistant you may actually get a 7 or 8 next time around. The suck on grading and really dont know what grade to assign it. I just purposely sent in some t206s with two in the group being trimmed. All cards came back graded including the two trimmed ones as 4s! One was cut so bad it had an irregular top. This company sucks stick with SGC or GAI. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: David Hobson
Dave,this is just a guess but you did say you were a relatively new collector. Its been my experience that many newer collectors have a natural bias with their cards. Its human nature. Before you submit a card, look at others you already own, that are slabbed at the grade you think it is. Be objective and really look close and read the authenticators guidelines as to what they describe for each grade. Also try to mentally error on the conservative side by 1 grade level. You'll be suprised at the results. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Josh K.
Dave makes a good point. I remember collecting as a kid and considered all of my cards (mostly from the 50's through the dreded 80's) mint. Then I went to college, got a job, got married, etc. and just got back into the hobby collecting vintage cards about 2 years ago. I went back and looked at my old cards a bit more objectively and couldnt believe that they were the same cards that I remembered. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Todd Schultz
good point--why don't you share your experience with Kit Young and Larry Fristch--seems they haven't looked at their cards since they were kids either, given their ideas of "mint" (or excellent, for that matter). |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Josh K.
Todd, |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: steve k
Dave - Your experience with PSA is quite typical of a first time submitter and the exact same thing happened to me. Once understanding how to grade though, you'll find those grades you received to be accurate for the most part. Included in my first PSA submission were two Topps 1965 Mantles. One was perfectly centered, beautifully printed, had crisp focus, but had a slight ding at one of the corners. Basically flawless except for that ding. The other was slightly off centered, not especially well printed, the ink was a little light, but it had 4 sharp corners. To me the first mentioned card was much preferable yet that card received a 5 and the other card received a 7. I am a big stickler on centering - I would rather have a well centered 5 type of card than an off centered 7. I sold the 7 and kept the 5 simply because to me the 5 was a better card. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: CHRIS
SGC DOES NOT CHARGE FOR POPULATION REPORTS. THERE HOLDERS LOOK GREAT, I BELIEVE THEY ARE CONSISTANT AND I HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS AS OF YET. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTT T205 Cobb PSA 4 for T206 Cy Young Port. PSA/SGC 4-5 | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 08-03-2008 11:08 PM |
WTT for aT206 Magie SGC 10 or PSA 1 or PSA A | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 07-21-2008 08:24 PM |
W600 Krueger SGC 50 Pitt., Curtis Ireland Holke SGC 60, Willards Hornsby PSA 2mk for sale | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 01-27-2008 03:01 PM |
PSA 1 p-f vs. SGC 10 and SGC 20 | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 06-08-2006 10:07 AM |
PSA 9 v. SGC 9 | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 03-27-2005 11:12 AM |